Timeline for UI suggests that "better fit elsewhere" is a valid reason for closure
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 22, 2016 at 21:10 | comment | added | Mast |
First a question must be closed as off-topic, and only then does a migration option become possible. At that point, migrations have become so slow there's no longer any point in migrating. People will cross-post instead (and hopefully delete their original question, but we all know how that goes).
|
|
| May 1, 2016 at 3:26 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @DavidZ it looks like I had to write several posts on this subject in order to develop the idea. :-) The one I just linked to is the latest and so has benefit of the prior ones, including this one. | |
| May 1, 2016 at 3:23 | comment | added | David Z | @MonicaCellio Ah, thanks for the link, that's just the kind of thing I've been thinking of. | |
| May 1, 2016 at 3:21 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @DavidZ that would be a good way to streamline it. The main goal is to ensure that it is first closed as off-topic and then migrate it; collecting the migration votes at close-vote time would be a fine idea IMO. (See also the discussion on the post I just linked.) | |
| May 1, 2016 at 3:20 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | Related: meta.stackexchange.com/a/277891/162102 | |
| May 1, 2016 at 3:18 | comment | added | David Z | This sounds like my proposal of choice, but I always envisioned migration as a checkbox-like control. When you vote to close a question as off topic, you'd also have the option of checking a box indicating that you think the question would be on topic on another site, and picking the site from a short list of options (as there is in the current dialog). If the question gets closed, and enough of the close voters wanted to migrate it to a single site, then the migration goes through. Does this correspond to one of your options, Monica? | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 4:05 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | While other sites have people who are over-eager to migrate. I don't know which situation is more common. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 4:01 | comment | added | 200_success | "Revisit unnecessarily" in the sense that you're making people re-read a question that has already been closed. Ideally you want to triage questions by reading them just once. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 3:58 | comment | added | 200_success | This proposal might improve the quality of migrations, but it would certainly have a cost in terms of agility and labour. Some sites have a hard enough time keeping their close queue in check. I'm not sure that it would be a worthwhile trade-off. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 3:57 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | I'm not sure what you mean about revisiting unnecessarily. Fewer people will notice, yes (because closure doesn't generate any notifications), but most questions don't get migrated so we're trading this against asking people to consider migration for every single off-topic question. This approach is more organic. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 3:54 | comment | added | 200_success | A sequence point between the closing and migrating processes would put the onus of nominating a question for migration largely on the last deciding close voter, and cause a lot of other people to revisit a question unnecessarily. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 3:49 | history | edited | Monica Cellio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 38 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2015 at 3:31 | history | answered | Monica Cellio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |